Contributions From Pacs Don't Always Do Job Intended

June 21, 1987|By Chris Reidy , Sentinel Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — It's not always easy being a political mover and shaker -- especially now that Congress may be changing the rules. Just ask Tom Nemet, a car dealer from Jamaica, N.Y., who tried to move and shake Bob Graham.

As the national chairman of an imported car dealers association, Nemet funneled contributions last fall to congressional candidates in the hope that they would oppose tariffs designed to jack up the prices of Jaguars and Toyotas.

To that end, the political action committee that Nemet controls -- the Auto Dealers and Drivers Free Trade PAC -- put up $427,000 on Republican incumbent Paula Hawkins' behalf in her race for the Senate against then-Gov. Graham.

The Senate is now considering a reform bill that would change the campaign finance law. Proposed by the Democratic leadership, the bill seeks to discourage such tactics as those the Free Trade PAC used against Graham.

If enacted in present form, however, the bill might unintentionally achieve the opposite effect and foster, rather than discourage, heavy outsider spending in congressional races, some politicians and experts believe.

Under current law, PACs may contribute a maximum of $5,000 a candidate, but the Free Trade PAC avoided that limit by making what is called an independent expenditure. Because the Free Trade PAC aired its television advertisements without consulting the Hawkins campaign, its contribution is regarded as an expression of free speech that cannot be subject to statutory limits.

As it turned out, the Free Trade PAC's independent expenditure had little impact on a race in which Graham and Hawkins spent $13 million.

Charles Black, Hawkins' political consultant, said he had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of independent expenditures helping a candidate.

''Sometimes it helps; sometimes it hurts,'' Black said. ''Most of the time it's irrelevant.''

To make sure that no hard feelings lingered after the election, the Free Trade PAC and some of its Florida members chipped in to help retire Graham's campaign debt.

What remains a mystery, though, is why the Free Trade PAC chose Hawkins over Graham in the first place. After all, Hawkins and Graham had similar positions on trade issues. That, however, did not deter the Free Trade PAC from shelling out the megabucks.

With Graham leading in most polls, there was also a pragmatic argument against supporting Hawkins. Why place a large, last-minute bet on a fading candidate?

At first, Nemet said he could not decide whether to commit his PAC spending to the Senate race in Florida or the one in California. In California, it turned out, Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., retained his seat by the slimmest of margins. As in the Florida race, Cranston and his Republican challenger shared similar views on the trade issue, a Cranston aide said.

Asked why he had chosen Florida over California, where a large contribution might have made a difference, Nemet offered a simple explanation, ''Hey, I screwed up.''

As is often the case with PACs, Nemet decided which candidates would be supported without consulting PAC members.

Explaining his role in candidate selection, Bill Lehman Jr., a PAC member, said, ''You just write out a check and forget about it.'' A Graham supporter and an automobile dealer, Lehman is the son of Rep. Bill Lehman, D- Miami.

When the Free Trade ads praising Hawkins began to air, Graham campaign workers encouraged some Florida auto dealers to revolt.

Nemet said, ''I had a hornet's nest on my hands.''

PAC money, advocates of the Senate reform bill argue, is not always efficiently spent. In this case, some Florida auto dealers contributed directly to Graham and then found themselves having contributed to a PAC that helped Hawkins. One result: more expensive campaigns.

It is that argument that campaign reformers use in advocating limits to PACs and spending. The proliferation of PACs, they maintain, has increased the cost of elections, which reached $450 million in 1986, a 20 percent increase from 1984. In 1986, independent expenditures amounted to $8.5 million, compared with $300,000 in 1978.

A political scientist at the University of Virginia disputes the view that regulating PACs will restrain campaign costs.

''You cannot permanently dam the flow of special interest money,'' said Larry J. Sabato, author of the book PAC Power.

''All you can do is change the path of its flow. That's what reformers don't understand,'' he said. ''All this reform bill seems to do is push money into the back channels, where it will be more difficult to trace. The best you can hope for is full disclosure.''

Under the reform bill, a candidate targeted by independent expenditures could apply for matching public funds raised by increasing the $1 checkoff on federal income tax returns.

Public financing is one of the issues that divides the Senate on campaign reform. Republicans, who so far have successfully filibustered the Democrats' reform bill, contend that taxpayers shouldn't have to bear the cost of congressional races.